Collectivism vs. Individualism

[BlameThe1st]

I want some input about whether I'm defining collectivism and individualism properly or not.

Recently, I wrote a blog post in response to Vox Day, who claims to be a libertarian blogger, even though his racism, sexism, and nationalism reveals him to be more of a collectivist than an individualist.

This lead to a comment from the deviant TheNecromancer questioning the nature of individualism and collectivism:

The-Necromancer finds your apparent definition of "collectivism" to be most derogatory.

Although, when you really think about it, any society is more than less collectivist in one form or another as each society is a society of classes. Each social strata seeks what is in it's collective interest via government in democratic society, while in undemocratic society collectivism is enforced through the decree of a ruling class or classes. It is, in essence, a natural response of human culture. Groups of individuals with common interests and traits will band together for their collective interests.

In a manner of speaking, what The-Necromancer is saying is that the whole "individualist - collectivist" notion is flawed, as individuals are members of a collective, all of whom will display varying degrees of cooperation or autonomy. Ultimately, there really is no such thing as a truly individualist or collectivist ideal.

I responded thusly:

I guess it all depends on voluntary versus involuntary association.

For example, I consider myself a Brony and wish to associate with other Bronies because we like the same show. The same goes with being a libertarian and Christian. I associate with those collectives because we share the same values. But these are not arbitrary values. I am not born a Brony or libertarian or Christian. I can stop liking MLP, stop advocating liberty, and reject Christianity. Thus I can willfully choose to associate with those collectives. They are voluntary.

In contrast, there are aspects about me that are not voluntary: race, gender, sex, class, nation. They are arbitrary. I did not choose to be white or male or heterosexual or middle class or American. I was born that way. I could change them: I could have an operation to change my skin color and sex, I could date men, I could work my way up through the class system, and I could move to another country. But all of that would take time and money I do not have. So associating myself with others through those aspects would be involuntary.

This is why I don't care for identity/gender politics, class warfare, or nationalism: they all require collectivism of arbitrary, non voluntary aspects.

So, no, I would not consider joining a Brony club or Libertarian party or church to be on the same level of collectivism as corporatism or nationalism or socialism. One involves voluntary association, the other does not.

And this was his response:

Thus you would agree that collectivism is perhaps a misunderstood term, one which truly applies to almost any human interaction? As such, there really is no true distinction between "Collectivism" (big C) and "Individualism" (big I) in regards to the fabric of society. Individualism is only really the more flexible, voluntary form of a collective participation. Being horizontal in nature, so to speak, individuals may freely move from one group to another or reject certain collectives based upon personal preferences. Such collectives are fluid in nature, and likely far more social too.

The arbitrary form of collectives, such as nations and the individuals who comprise them, are far more rigid. Even in the "most free" of societies, everyone is working in concert for the betterment of the whole. Some do so with admirable and selfless intent, while others choose to do so for their personal ascendance within the established hierarchy of society. That being the case, the vertical form of collectivism is undeniably more antagonistic to the individual aims of any one person. Considering it is a vertical system, this creates antagonisms between the classes or strata of said collective.

Only when there are no classes, or at least two or three non-antagonistic classes working in concert with one another rather than opposing each other, will we have a more voluntary and horizontal form of society. The true road to the freedom you desire is not with the size or responsibility of the governments, but with the elimination of class rivalry and the natural hierarchy imposed by such rivalry. That is, of course, a Marxian interpretation which I'm sure you disagree with. The-Necromancer will remind you that Marx and Engels were for self-governance and the autonomy of what we would call horizontal collectives. Each would work voluntarily to provide for the needs of all (through common interest) while retaining their individuality and self-determination in how exactly to do it.

I want you guys to tell me if I'm offering a proper explanation of collectivism versus individualism.

I know we libertarians are big on individualism, but to be fair, there are points when we do clearly support collectives. The fact that we come together to form political parties such as the Libertarian Party shows that. So there are points where collectives are okay, at least when it involves freedom of association.

But in that regards, how do we distinguish between collectivism and individualism? Was my response to Necromancer proper by explaining that collectives are fine provided they are voluntary in nature, as opposed to collectives that are arbitrary such as race, sex, and nation? If so, is there a danger that collectivism through voluntary association can trump the individual, and thus pose a danger to individualism? Is this a proper understanding of individualism and collectivism? And what would be a proper response to Necromancer?

What are your thoughts?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I'm just plain not a fan of tribalism in any form because it's just a tool for people who are too lazy to honestly observe the world.

Even in the case of voluntary interaction and grouping like you brought up, how many people have you dealt with who say rule 39 applies to ponies too and concluded that therefore means all bronies are into that?

Collectivism is just a nicer term for biggotry.

[dallen68]

I believe, as far as collectivism vs. individualism is concerned, you are arguing about the wrong thing. It's not associations that make collectivism (as a political philosophy, which is what I assume is what Libertarians are on about). With collectivism, "the group" has rights or property or (fill in the blank). With individualism, the "person" has those things.

Collectivists, at least in relatively free societies, are very fond of expressions like "majority rules", and "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" or similar words that essentially mean "your rights end whenever the collective decides they end.

Whether you're collectivist or individualist, your going to have associations. Sometimes, those associations are collectivists in nature; but it's not automatically a collective just because it's an association. What makes it a collective is society tells you you are or should be associated with that specific group. In the United States, religion is an individual association. In some other countries, it is a collective association, because in those countries it is illegal to not be part of that group.

Things like gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. should not be considered in these terms, because these associations are just facts, you did not choose them but society did not choose them for you, either.